This Just In...

The New York Times reported on August 27 that physicists in Sweden have duplicated work done by American and Russian scientists a decade ago isolating element 115, a synthetic element as yet unnamed.  (The temporary name is ununpentium – you Latin students out there can figure out why.)  Element 115 is created by smashing calcium-48 ions into a target of americium atoms, which creates an atom with 115 protons in its nucleus; in less than a second, however, element 115 degrades to element 113 (ununtrium). 

Ninety-two elements exist in nature; researchers have created and named 20 more.  There are still more that are suspected, but unnamed.  (Kind of like those sources quoted in national security news stories.)  These synthetic elements do not occur in nature.  Many of them exist for nanoseconds, then morph into something else.  My question is:  Why are we doing this?  There are plenty of things that actually do occur in nature that exist for mere moments, then change into something else entirely, say, an honest politician; a talented boy band; or a sober Lindsay Lohan.

Let’s just hope this kind of thinking doesn’t spread into other aspects of our lives.  Will Hallmark scientists devise a “Brandon-o-Lantern?”  Will the “Easter Skunk” begin to deliver chocolate eggs next spring?  Is there really room for “Uncle Christmas?”  There are plenty of attributes of Life in America that are already not exactly what they seem.  Oxymorons abound:  CNN morning news; civil liberties; constructive criticism; accurate rumors; active retirement.  Can we not simply leave nature to nature and not attempt to Frankenstein our way to new elements to play with?  As a layman, I’m not sure how useful all of this research is.  On the surface, it’s done merely because we can do it.  To me, it’s not all that different from devising chrome-plated rain gutters, or a gasoline-powered turtleneck sweater, or a fur sink.  Big demand for those items; isn’t it the same for ununpentium?  Even Dirk Randolph, who led the team at Lund University said, “Given the production rate – let’s say, two atoms per day – practical implications are far-fetched.”

And who comes up with these names?  On either side of this new 115, there is flerovium-114 and livermorium-116.  Americium is element 95 on the Periodic Table.  Three doors down, we find californium-98.  I submit the following potential names for element 115:

·      Clintonium

·      Lohanium

·      Nsyncium (that one has a nice ring to it…)

·      …and, for philosophical empiricists, Unobtainium

The original discoverers of ununpentium are thrilled that the Swedes have duplicated their work.  Validation is a good thing.  Perhaps that is what is at the bottom of all this syntheticism, if I may coin a word.  It’s one thing to discover something in your own sandbox, then recreate it again and again, at will.  But in words that might be the anthem for our time, Dr. Krzysztof Rykaczewski, a scientist at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee who worked on the confirmation team said, “it’s always better when someone else does it.”

As a liberal arts major, reading that one can create 115 by bombarding americium atoms with calcium ion, I’m tempted to conduct my own experiment by throwing a handful of Tums at a Rand McNally map of the US.  While I might not actually duplicate the results of the Swedes, I’ll certainly obtain the same pragmatic result.